John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If I could take a little trip down memory lane with my friend from Illinois, whom I had the great privilege many years ago--I don't know if I should mention the 1982 election. He and I came to the House of Representatives together, and he might recall that one of his own, then a Democratic Congressman from Texas, got together with President Reagan and guess what we did. We cut taxes. Guess what. We had one of the strongest recoveries in recent history of this country because we didn't start spending and add spending without paying for them. I would say to the Senator from Illinois, he is correct; the spending that went on in the previous administration was not acceptable and led to the deficit. But I would also say, speaking for myself, I voted against the Medicare Part D because it was not paid for. I voted against the earmark and porkbarrel spendings which were abundant as every appropriations bill came to the floor and dramatically increased spending in the worst way, wasteful and corrupt way, I will say. I am proud that at least some of us said: If we don't stop this spending and get it under control, then we are going to face a serious problem. But I would also mention, and the Senator has seen the chart, it has gotten a lot worse--a lot worse--since the last election. You can't keep up B-I-O-B. You can't keep up Blame It On Bush. Go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. If I could say we believed and Reagan believed that cutting tax cuts would restore our economy, which was in the tank, thanks to the practice of the previous administration before him. Reagan presided over probably one of the greatest job-creation periods in the history of this country. Those are numbers that I would be glad to insert into the Record. Compare that with what has happened since this administration took office, with the promise that if we passed ObamaCare, if we passed TARP, if we passed all these others, the economy would then be restored and grow. Again, it is hard for my dear friend from Illinois to refute the fact that it was categorically stated that if we passed the stimulus package, unemployment would be at a maximum of 8 percent. Unemployment today is 9.2 percent, and if we look at any indicator, whether it be housing starts, whether it be the deficit, whether it be unemployed, whatever it is, it has gotten worse since the stimulus package was passed rather than better.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to just hear the Senator's comment.

Mr. McCAIN. As the Senator may know, I came to the floor a couple days ago and made the comment that the Senator from Illinois and I are in agreement. Point No. 1, we can prioritize--and every economist that I know literally would agree. We can prioritize for a while where we want what remaining money that is left. But the message we send to the world--not just our markets but to the world--that the United States of America is going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and beneath a great nation. We are in agreement, No. 1.

Mr. McCAIN. No. 2 is that to insist that any agreement is based on the passage through the Senate of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as I said before, is not fair to the American people because the terrible obstructionists on the Senator's side of the aisle, the terrible people, their flawed philosophical views about the future of America is not going to allow us to get 20 additional votes from the Senator's side, assuming you get all 47, since it required 67 votes to pass a balanced budget amendment because of the Constitution. I think it was not only a wrong assessment; I think it is not fair to the American people to say we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution through the Senate at this time. Maybe after the Senator is defeated in the next election and we get rid of a lot of-- maybe that will happen. But certainly let's not tell the American people that is a possibility because I think it raises their expectations in a way that is not fair to them and, frankly, detracts from what I think is being done as we speak between the leaders, the President, Democratic leaders and Republican leaders, which is in a very short timeframe. Go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. I would love to come out. As I saw, I did so well in the Presidential campaign in the land of Lincoln, I am not surprised I had such a dramatic impact on the election of the Senator from Illinois as well. Could I just say, I think this kind of discussion is important, No. 1. No. 2 is, we should have this national debate on other forums besides just the Sunday show, and perhaps the floor of the Senate is the best place to do that. I wish to continue to engage with the Senator from Illinois, but I hope this agreement will assure the American people that we will meet our obligations, that we will meet our obligations not only physically but fiscally but also meet our obligations to them to govern--to govern--because they did send to us here to govern. I think the Senator from Illinois would agree with me. The last approval rating of Congress I saw, both sides of the aisle, was about 16 percent; and I have yet to encounter anyone in that 16- percent category in my travels back to my State. By the way, I would like to note the presence of the Budget Committee chairman, Senator Conrad, who I think has made enormous good-faith efforts to reach an agreement on some of these issues, and I thank him for his work. I wish to assure him his reward will be in heaven, not here on Earth.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I remind the Senator from Illinois that, in retrospect, the one thing President Reagan said he regretted--and he regretted it--was the agreement that was made with the Democratic leadership that we would cut spending by $3 and increase taxes by $1 for every cut in spending. That was the ironclad agreement. Guess what happened. We increased taxes. The fact is, we raised taxes and did not cut spending, and that was in direct violation of the commitment he got from the Democratic leadership. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for additional time, if necessary.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as the Senator from Illinois just pointed out, today we are 6 days away from a possible default which could plunge this country into a serious crisis. In fact, there are some who view maybe it is not exactly 6 days; it could be a few days more. There are those who argue that somehow--in a bizarre fashion-- that somehow we could prioritize our payments to the most urgent requirements, such as our veterans, such at Social Security and others. I wonder, what if the Greek Government came up with that same proposal as they went into bankruptcy, that they would prioritize spending that is remaining? The point is, today we are 6 days away. The point is, markets are jittery. Investors are concerned. Most importantly, our constituents are frustrated. They are confused and they are angry. Today, on the front page of USA Today, there is a headline that says: The Debt: What Americans Think About The Political Debate. It goes on to say: Just get it done, work it out. Another person: ``I'm sick of it,'' says Davis, 73, a retired economist. . . . ``They're playing games. Here we are, trying to pull ourselves out of recession, and they can't come to an agreement.'' If anyone thinks that the reputation and the approval rating of Congress and the Presidency has improved during this situation we find ourselves in, obviously they are out of touch with their constituents and the American people. Not only are the American people concerned, not only are the American people upset, but I will quote from and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from this morning's Washington Post.

Mr. McCAIN. That article says: Frustrated executives say political impasse slows hiring and investing. Business leaders are growing exasperated with Washington. And they say the dysfunction in the political system is holding them back from hiring and investing. So where we are is, average American citizens are worried, Social Security recipients who are entitled are calling our offices, and the markets are already jittery. Most economists believe, if we allow this deadline to pass, that we will see a cratering of the financial markets, which, obviously, has a significant impact on savings, on people's holdings in the stock market, 401(k)s, et cetera. Meanwhile, here we are with a situation, and over on the other side of the Capitol, our Republican friends are trying to come up with a proposal that will receive the support of their majority. Over here, we have individuals who believe somehow there is still a chance, at least in this Congress, to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I will take a backseat to none in my support of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have voted for it 13 times. I will vote for it tomorrow. What is amazing about this is, some Members are believing we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation, and that is foolish. That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents by telling them that just because the majority leader tabled the balanced budget amendment legislation that, through amending and debate, we could somehow convince the majority on the other side of the aisle to go along with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is not fair. That is not fair to the American people to hold out and say we will not agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is unfair. It is bizarro. Maybe some people who have only been in this body for 6 or 7 months or so believe that. Others know better. Others know better. I am confident, one, someday we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Two, I am confident the overwhelming majority of the American people support it. Three, I am convinced that is the only way that at the end of the day, we will get spending under control because I have seen in the past Congress enacting very strong restrictions on spending, such as the Gramm-Rudman legislation, which required spending cuts with increases in spending and all of them failed because Congresses cannot bind future Congresses. That is why I remain committed to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. To somehow think or tell our citizens that if we have enough debate on amendments in the Senate, in the short term, in the next 6 days, we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is unfair to our constituents. It is unfair to our constituents, frankly, to come up with a plan--the so-called Reid plan--that is full of smoke and mirrors, and, frankly, does not entail any increase--real spending cuts. It is unfair of the President of the United States to lead from behind. It is unfair of the President of the United States not to come forward with a specific plan that perhaps could be considered by both bodies but only to go out and give lectures and act in as partisan a fashion as I have seen in his addresses to the American people. It is no wonder the approval ratings of the American people of the President and of Congress are literally at alltime lows. I wish to talk for just a minute about an editorial in The Wall Street Journal this morning. The Wall Street Journal is not known to be--especially on its editorial page--a liberal periodical. It is entitled ``The GOP's Reality Test.'' It talks about: The debt-limit debate is heading toward a culmination, with President Obama reduced to pleading for the public to support a tax increase and Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid releasing competing plans that are next-to- last realistic options. The question is whether House Republicans are going to help Mr. Boehner achieve significant progress, or, in the name of the unachievable, hand Mr. Obama a victory. Mr. Obama recognizes these stakes, threatening yesterday to veto the Boehner plan in a tactical move to block any Democratic support. It goes on and talks about the two-phase Boehner plan. Congress would authorize $1 trillion in new debt in return for $1.2 trillion. It has since been scored by CBO, and now I believe that on the House side--they are struggling but I hope will succeed in coming up with a proposal that will authorize the cuts we have advertised. But I go on to read: Unless the plan passed, Mr. Obama couldn't request the additional $1.6 trillion debt ceiling increase that he would soon need. The political incentive is for a reasonable package, and many Senate Democrats also don't want to vote for tax increases before 2012. It talks about the critics, about people putting out statements, telling Republicans, telling the Speaker to come up with a better solution. The usually sensible Club for Growth and Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, are scoring a vote for the Boehner plan as negative on similar grounds. But what none of these critics have is an alternative strategy for achieving anything nearly as fiscally or politically beneficial as Mr. Boehner's plan. The idea seems to be if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama. The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all the blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor. This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees. The reality is that the debt limit will be raised one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much fiscal reform and what political fallout. If the Boehner plan fails in the House, the advantage shifts to Mr. Reid's Senate plan, which would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion in one swoop through 2012. That would come without a tax increase but also $2.7 trillion in mostly fake spending cuts like less government ``waste, fraud, and abuse.'' How many times have we heard we are going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse? And a $1 trillion savings from troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan that are already built into the baseline. As fiscal reform, this is worse than Mr. Boehner's plan. The Speaker has made mistakes in his debt negotiations, not least in trusting that Mr. Obama wants serious fiscal reforms. But thanks to the President's overreaching on taxes, Mr. Boehner now has the GOP positioned in sight of a political and policy victory. If this plan or something close to it becomes law, Democrats will have conceded more spending cuts than they thought possible, and without getting the GOP to raise taxes and without being able to blame Republicans for a debt-limit crackup or economic damage. If conservatives defeat the Boehner plan, they'll not only undermine our House majority. They'll go far to re-electing Mr. Obama and making the entitlement state that much harder to reform. Let me say, again, I believe the plan crafted by Senator McConnell that would call for significant cuts in spending, which would not have raises in taxes, would, in the short term, be a most reasonable solution. I hope that on both sides of the aisle we could work together and negotiate a way through that. I also think the much derided by some idea of a committee composed of Members of Congress--of Members of Congress only--from both sides of the aisle, from both sides of the Capitol, to sit down and work out a long-term solution to our fiscal calamities we are facing and those results and those recommendations by that committee be subject to an up-or-down vote only is the only way we can go. How many times have we had a budget resolution that tasks the various committees to come up with savings and always those savings are phony or they are dismantled on the floor of the Senate? The only way we are going to have the courage to make these cuts is with a committee composed of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol who come up with tough measures that need to be taken. I believe the American people will support it. If it is not an up-or-down vote, we know what happens around here. Let's be honest. Let's have some straight talk. The special interests prevail, and they would dismantle the tough provisions this committee would come up with. I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, this is a balance, Republican and Democrat. We only control one-third of the government, and that is the House of Representatives. It seems to me a balanced, equal representation is to our advantage. I just wish to say a word, again, about the Reid plan. First of all, I congratulate the majority leader for coming up with a plan because certainly the President has not. Spectrum auctions is part of it. That is going to provide auction of billions of dollars. I have been in this body for a considerable period of time. I can't tell you the number of times we have called for auction of spectrum. It is an annual basis. It is a copout that prevents us from making tough decisions. Most egregiously, the majority leader's plan provides $1 billion to pay television broadcasters who return unused television broadcast spectrum. The television broadcasters got the spectrum for free, and now we are supposed to ask the taxpayers to give them $1 billion to give back the spectrum they own? Then, very interestingly, savings in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There are $30 billion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms. There is nowhere in this proposal that mentions that, but I would point out we have already spent $150 billion on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that we have never seen the end of. Then, of course, the large claim that there is $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, that is phony. Everybody knows we are winding down the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. So here we are 6 days away, and we still have members of Congress who are saying we have to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We have Members on the other side who are saying we have to raise taxes. We have a President of the United States who so far has refused to come forward with a detailed plan of his own. That is called leading from behind. It is time we listened to the markets. It is time we listened to our constituents. Most of all, it is time we listened to the American people and sit down and seriously negotiate something before we face a situation where we are depriving the American people of the fundamental right of having a government that doesn't deprive them of the essential services, goods, and entitlements which they have earned. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that due to my attendance at a dear friend's funeral this morning, I was not in the Senate to cast my vote for the cut, cap and balance legislation. I fully support cut, cap and balance and I am proud that Republicans put forward a concrete proposal to cut spending, balance the budget, reign in the spiraling debt that imperils our children's future and ensures that our Nation continues to meet its obligations. The Democratic leadership has failed to put forward any meaningful proposal to break this impasse, but instead continues to set up procedural road blocks to keep Republican plans from passing and force votes on nonbinding legislation that will do nothing to solve our problems. The Democrats, led by President Obama, continue to insist that our fiscal difficulties can be fixed by raising taxes on individuals and small businesses--the exact policies that will deepen our economic woes, not fix them. Both parties must now find a reasonable, responsible path forward to address head-on our debt crisis, end the mortgaging of our children's future and make certain that our Nation meets its debt obligations, as we Americans always have. If Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Ronald Regan could find agreement on such matters, we can too. We must put politics aside and do what is right for our Nation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I ask him, I have heard anecdotally the eligibility for disability under the guidelines as issued by the Secretary of the Army--and, by the way, we are talking about $40-some billion additional of taxpayers' money. I think that should be the subject of legislative action rather than a decision made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Is it not true that, anecdotally, we have heard that people who were in the Korean war and not the Vietnam war have somehow become eligible? And people who were on ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, not anywhere near Agent Orange, have also been declared eligible?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the Coburn amendment and ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think it is important for us to understand what this amendment is about. It does not affect the decisions regarding disability as a result of Agent Orange that have already been decided under the guidelines that were extended by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This is a prospective amendment. So any allegation that this somehow affects previous awarding of disability payments is not correct. It is a prospective amendment for cases that will be decided in the future. The issue of disability is always one that is very difficult because we start on the basis that concerns men and women who have served honorably in the military. Obviously, the predilection is, appropriately, to grant disabilities where those claims are made. But we now have a situation where somewhere around $40 billion, $41 billion, simply over the issue of heart disease, can be awarded without what appears to be a direct connection to Agent Orange. There were many of our men and women who were serving in the conflict in Vietnam who were exposed to Agent Orange, but there were many more who were not. I don't think one can make a case that someone who was stationed on a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and was many miles from any Agent Orange, that one could make a plausible case that Agent Orange was the cause of this disability. What this amendment tries to do is give a realistic set of parameters for the awarding of disability payment for those who actually were exposed, and not only exposed but also that there is a direct connection between the exposure to herbicides and the outcome. There are many needs amongst our veterans. They are there every single day. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure there is a legitimate need for compensation for those who were exposed to Agent Orange and a direct connection between that exposure and certain disabilities, particularly heart disease, Parkinson's disease, Hodgkin's, et cetera. What we are trying to do is make sure those who were actually exposed, and there is a direct connection, are rewarded, and adequately so, but at the same time not have a situation where it is an open-ended expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. The Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission endorsed the need for establishing a new framework for presumptions with more transparent processes but failed to take the full step of embracing causality in decisionmaking. This amendment will achieve that goal identified by the Institute of Medicine to ensure that scientifically based causality is at the heart of the disability determination process. I would match the commitment of the Senator from Oklahoma and my own for veterans with the commitment of anyone in this body, but there also has to be some rationality associated with it. I was a great admirer of the Honorable Tony Principi, who was the former Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Again, I want to quote from his statement: If the American people lose faith in the integrity of our disability benefit system, veterans and their families will be the ones who suffer. The surest way for that to happen is for the public to be convinced that presumptive service connection decisions are based on anything other than sound scientific advice. These presumptions, as they presently exist, are not based on sound scientific advice. With some I am sure this amendment is not popular, but I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for bringing it to the attention of this body.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Senator from Oregon. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it has been a pleasure working with him on not only the behalf of the people of Oregon but also on behalf of the Department of Defense. Amendment No. 564 Mr. President, I join the Senator from Oklahoma in supporting the amendment which Senator Coburn had intended to propose. The amendment would have amended Public Law 102-4, the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which I cosponsored, to provide clarity on the factual basis required for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make future determinations on the presumption of connection of military service in Vietnam with diseases associated with exposure to the herbicide commonly known as Agent Orange. Agent Orange was unanticipated and certainly not something that at the time, given the scientific knowledge and information we had, was thought would be detrimental to the health of the men and women who were serving in the Vietnam war. But the fact is, Agent Orange did have a very serious health effect on the men and women who were serving and those who came in contact with it. For years, we delayed compensating our veterans, those who were exposed to Agent Orange. In 1991, the act was a long overdue answer to questions on the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange, and it directed much deserved compensation to our veterans for certain diseases, including non- Hodgkin's lymphoma and certain cancers. What has happened, and the reason why I appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma raising this issue, is it has obviously now reached a point where the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has now expanded the eligibility to the point where it is beyond any scientific evidence that compensation would be required. In 2006, it was found that the evidence linking ischemic heart disease to exposure to herbicides was inadequate or insufficient. Heart disease, as we all know, is the leading cause of death in America today and has been so for decades. In 2008, they updated their findings based on two epidemiological studies which provided ``statistical'' evidence of a relationship. Still, they categorized the link between ischemic heart disease and exposure to Agent Orange as ``limited or suggestive evidence of an association.'' That already low standard was further qualified with the following statement: Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association-- Suggests an association-- between exposure to herbicides and the outcome, but a firm conclusion is limited because chance, bias and confounding could not be ruled out with confidence. Despite this doubt, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs decided to grant a new presumption for ischemic heart disease, which according to the Department of Veterans Affairs will cost nearly $31.9 billion over the next 10 years. Similarly, with Parkinson's disease, which was also found to be in the category of ``limited or suggestive evidence,'' a decision was made to grant compensation and benefits based on exposure to Agent Orange, which according to the VA will cost $3.5 billion over the next 10 years. This process is a risky, hit or miss, and costly way to administer the veterans disability program and resources, which are in scarce supply and which our veterans need and deserve in return for their sacrifice to our Nation. In its report to the congressionally mandated Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission in 2007, the Institute of Medicine itself found that the ``association'' standard contained in the Agent Orange Act was inadequate and potentially misleading. That report recommended the goal of the presumptive disability decisionmaking process be to ensure compensation for veterans whose diseases are caused by military service and a new primary standard that sufficient evidence to support a determination of presumption would exist when evidence is sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship exists. The Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission endorsed the need for establishing a new framework for presumptions with more transparent processes, but it failed to take the full step of embracing causality in decisionmaking. The amendment my colleague from Oklahoma so bravely intended to offer would have achieved the goal identified by the Institute of Medicine to ensure that scientifically based causality is at the heart of the disability determination process. My vote in favor of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 was a vote to discern facts from rhetoric and even politics and to put the welfare of our veterans above all other considerations, including costs. My support of the Coburn amendment would be no different. It is appropriate to adopt a clearer, stronger standard for the presumption of service-connected disabilities to ensure greater consistency in this process and, in doing so, to help ensure that our Nation's resources are available to provide appropriate compensation and benefits for veterans of wars to come. Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Tony Principi, before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, on September 23, 2010, on this very subject--the subject of presumptive disability decisionmaking--said: Make no mistake: these decisions do not merely affect those who may or may not receive presumptive service connections and their families. The American people watch these decisions closely, both to ensure that those who have defended our Nation while in uniform are treated fairly, and to ensure that those who have been given the responsibility to administer the program are good stewards of the resources with which they have been entrusted. If the American people lose faith in the integrity of our disability benefits system, veterans and their families will be the ones who suffer. The surest way for that to happen is for the public to be convinced that presumptive service connection decisions are based on anything other than sound scientific advice. There is no sound scientific advice that indicates that many of these decisions are valid and directly connected to exposure to Agent Orange. I urge the chairman of the committee to look into this issue. We are talking about $31.9 billion and another $3.5 billion which may not be necessary to be spent. I believe and understand the emotion associated with the issue of Agent Orange because for so many years our Nation neglected--that was not benign neglect, it was neglect--the plight of veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and the terrible physical problems that ensued as a result of that exposure. But now it is pretty clear that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has gone way over in the opposite direction in giving presumptive service connection when there is no valid scientific evidence to convince me that kind of illegibility is there. So I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I urge the Senator, the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, to look at this issue, look at whether this $31.9 billion, plus $3.5 billion--over $35 billion--over the next 10 years is wisely spent. That does not mean we do not provide disability payments to those who actually have been exposed and need it. But there is a lack of scientific evidence that many of the benefits that are being extended are absolutely warranted. So I know the Senator from Oklahoma will not be proposing this amendment, and I understand that. But I wish to assure the committee chairman that when we are talking about this kind of money, we need to investigate it very seriously and reach decisions which are in the best interests of our veterans. There are veterans out there who need compensation, and every day, unfortunately, we are having young men and women return from the battlefield who have disabilities as a result of serving our Nation in combat. So I hope the chairman of the committee will look at this issue very seriously. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that in this amendment there is no desire to deprive someone who was actually exposed to this herbicide called Agent Orange and suffered physical consequences as a result; that this amendment basically draws a difference among three words: One is ``causation,'' which is generally the criteria used in any of these cases, the causation, and that would replace the current ``positive association.'' As the Senator just described, positive association could be most any encounter that anybody would have had who served. I always thought it was in Vietnam, but now he tells me it is even adding someone who served in Korea. Isn't it true that we are not trying to deprive anyone who was legitimately exposed to Agent Orange and shows the causation, and that they are entitled to benefits from the taxpayers of America? What we are talking about, isn't it true, is that ``positive association'' is such an amorphous definition that it leads to an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars, while there are veterans out there who are in need of these taxpayer dollars for their legitimate reasons?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Texas, I am just wondering if a view that she might have might be that we have been terribly overworked this week. I understand we cancelled our Fourth of July recess in order to get back here and get to work and do the people's business. Is it correct that was the second vote that we have taken? One was an instruction of the Sergeant at Arms, and this one, another highly controversial issue that was taken up. I guess my question to the Senator from Texas is, Has this week been a worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars?

Mr. McCAIN. I see the distinguished majority leader waiting, so I will make my comments brief. I know that his agenda is very busy. I would just say to my friend from Texas that I understand a lot of the inner mechanisms and hidden workings are going on behind the scenes. But when I go back and tell my constituents that we cancelled a week of recess and we had two votes--one to instruct the Sergeant at Arms and the other on a sense-of-the Senate resolution--I would have liked to have taken up other business that was rejected by Members on this side because they wanted to focus on the deficit. But if we are focusing on that, maybe we should have taken up some issues that directly affect the deficit, such as ethanol subsidies, such as some of the other tax breaks and loopholes and other issues that surround the whole bankruptcy of this country. I see the majority leader is waiting, so I will yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes to address this body as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is well known to all Americans who have observed, and certainly the media and certainly Members of this body, the Congress, that the debt limit talks are bogged down. There has been little if any progress, certainly not any perceptible to the American people. We are in a gridlock, a gridlock that is not favored by many Americans. In fact, I continue to hear from my constituents the call: Why can't you all sit down and work this out? Why can't we not be faced with a shutdown of the government and the loss of the important services that the Federal Government gives to the American people--most of which they have earned and all of which they deserve? Here we are with the President of the United States demanding that there be tax increases and the Republicans, certainly many of them, are insisting on a balanced budget amendment which cannot pass the Congress of the United States. On the one hand, President Obama and my friends on the other side of the aisle insist on tax increases and argue somewhat inflammatory and populist issues such as corporate jets, carried interest for private equity, oil and gas. Those are hard to defend. At the same time it is very clear that the American people spoke and administered what the President of the United States called a ``shellacking'' last November. They want us to stop mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's future and get the spending under control. I have yet to meet a constituent who wants their taxes increased. We are in a gridlock. There will be a meeting tomorrow on the debt crisis again, this time between the President and leaders of Congress. We all hope it will succeed, but it is my view the way to break this gridlock is to agree to certain tax increases and closing loopholes, but only in return for an overall reduction of the corporate tax rate. That way, Republicans can say we have not raised taxes overall, and the administration and the Democrats can say they eliminated loopholes and indeed made the taxation of Americans more fair. It is time we got serious. The debt, as we all know, is $50,000 for every man, woman, and child living in America today. That is why we have seen the rise of the Tea Party and the fiscal conservatives. I hope these negotiations can be made visible to the American public by C-SPAN so they can see what is being discussed. As I said, the debt stands at $14.5 trillion. We cannot continue to sit idly by while saddling future generations of Americans with the burden. So if we are serious about our commitment to reduce our debt and eliminate the deficit, then Congress needs to start making some serious decisions, and we need to start now. I would like to remind my colleagues, particularly in light of the impassioned speech I just listened to from my friend from Massachusetts, here is what President Obama's thoughts on the debt limit were in 2006 when he was a Member of this body. I quote him from a speech he made on the floor of this Senate: The fact we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. . . . Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ``the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. Then-Senator Barack Obama on the floor of this Senate. I guess it shows on some issues with then-Senator Barack Obama it is not where one stands, it is where one sits. I could not agree more with what then-Senator Obama said in 2006. Americans do deserve better. We are in this mess today because of a serious lack of leadership. It is not the fault of just one of the political parties; it is the fault of both parties. Year after year of uncontrolled spending by both Republicans and Democrats has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The point at which we will begin to default on our obligations is now just weeks away, and it is shameful. It should be inconceivable that the greatest Nation in the history of the world should face such crippling debt while its leaders engage in such partisan bickering instead of solving this problem. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, which I believe holds the answer to this stalemate. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``A Debt-Limit Breakout'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I quote from it: The debt-limit talks in Washington are bogged down in the hedgerows, with some Republicans insisting on a balanced budget amendment that can't pass Congress and President Obama insisting on tax increases that Republicans oppose. What this debate needs is a breakout strategy--to wit, Republicans should answer Mr. Obama's tax call by accepting his business tax increases in return for a lower corporate tax rate. The Wall Street Journal goes on to say: We've long favored such a reform, and last year so did the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission and the White House economic advisory council headed by Paul Volcker. But the cause has now acquired no less a convert than Bill Clinton. Speaking Saturday at something called the Aspen Ideas Festival, the former President admitted that he had once raised tax rates on corporations. ``It made sense when I did it. It doesn't make sense anymore. We've got an uncompetitive rate,'' he said. ``We tax at 35% of income, although we only take about 23%. So we should cut the rate to 25%, or whatever's competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there's not so much variance in what the corporations pay.'' The editorial goes on to say: Anyone not in thrall of class-war symbolism understands that the U.S. corporate tax code provides the worst of both worlds: It makes U.S. companies less competitive even as it raises much less revenue than advertised. Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have acknowledged this in the past, the President as recently as this year's State of the Union address. As for the debt-limit politics, this is also a winner. Democrats and Republicans say they've agreed privately on sizable spending cuts over a 10-year budget window. No doubt some of those cuts are less real than others, and future Congresses could rewrite any enforcement provisions passed this year. But Republicans still have an incentive to set spending on a downward path, and Mr. Obama has an incentive to show he is no longer a hostage of Nancy Pelosi as he runs for re-election. The political sticking point is Mr. Obama's desire for some Republican buy-in on raising revenues. His political left is still sore that he agreed to extend the Bush tax rates through 2012. Thus he's pounding Republicans to agree to eliminate certain business tax deductions that political advisers David Axelrod and David Plouffe have told him will be hard for Republicans to defend. Corporate jets. Carried interest for private equity. Oil and gas. Even LIFO accounting, which few understand but can be made to sound nefarious. Whatever their individual merits, each of those would be a tax increase on business, and Republicans campaigned last year on not raising taxes. But the politics is different if they can offset these revenue raisers with lower tax rates. That would let Republicans honestly claim they didn't support a net tax increase, even as Mr. Obama could say he raised revenue. Our own guess is that such a reform would raise far more money than the official scorers would predict, since it would lead to a more efficient allocation of capital and less tax evasion. This would also promote economic growth, breaking out of the austerity mentality driven by debt reduction. If Mr. Obama really is worried that lower federal spending will hurt the economy, then this tax reform is also his best growth policy. The Journal argues that we can offset the costs to businesses of closing loopholes and eliminating subsidies with a cut in the corporate tax rate. I completely agree. We should be openminded when considering what should be eliminated. For instance, the distorting effect of subsidies is clearly evident in the energy sector. We should eliminate these subsidies, lower the corporate tax rate, and allow the marketplace to pick winners and losers, not the government. The ethanol tax is a perfect example. This year the ethanol tax credit cost taxpayers almost $6 billion in addition to the $41.2 billion we have already spent in subsidies on ethanol since 1980. A recent CRS, Congressional Research Service, report indicates that tax credits and subsidies for solar, wind, and geothermal power will cost $8.6 billion from 2008 to 2012. For the oil and gas industry, the eight tax breaks recommended for elimination by President Obama would eliminate $43.6 billion in spending over 10 years. The largest among these tax breaks is the section 199 manufacturing tax subsidies that will cost approximately $18 billion over 10 years. We should eliminate the section 199 tax subsidies for all industries to avoid arbitrarily picking winners and losers. Why should we value manufacturing over other service providers? Additionally, we should eliminate all agricultural subsidies, including sugar programs, end corporate welfare, and end tax breaks for corporations for things such as corporate jets. We need to put aside the rhetoric of corporate jets, which is just a poll-tested political phrase concocted behind one-way mirrors. Everyone knows eliminating all tax breaks on corporate jets would not amount to any real progress, but if we seriously looked at curbing corporate subsidies, such as the ethanol subsidy I just mentioned, then all Americans would benefit. I feel the need to provide my colleagues with some straight talk. As the Journal notes, some of my Republican colleagues are ``insisting on a balanced budget amendment that can't pass Congress.'' Let me be clear--I am an avid supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Since 1983, I have introduced or cosponsored more than a dozen bills or amendments calling for a balanced budget amendment, and I have had the privilege of voting in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution no less than 13 times in my Congressional career. I applaud my colleagues for their tireless dedication to this cause. But our reality today dictates that we do not have the votes in this body to enact such a measure. Perhaps that will change after next year. I hope so. But for our purposes today, in order to avoid what could be disastrous consequences for our markets, our economy as a whole, and our standing in the world, I encourage my colleagues to lay aside, at least temporarily, their insistence that amending the Constitution be a condition of their support for a solution to this terrible problem. The Wall Street Journal editorial ends with this: Think about it. On the current path both sides are headed at best for a de minimis deal that makes everyone look bad, at worst for a major political crack-up. Perhaps Mr. Obama wants a crack-up to portray Republicans as extreme. As my colleague from Massachusetts just did. But Republicans should at least call his bluff and answer his demands for fewer business tax deductions by saying yes-- in return for lower tax rates. I couldn't agree more with the Wall Street Journal. This debate desperately needs a breakout strategy. I am pleased to see that President Clinton has joined the Wall Street Journal in embracing a commonsense solution to this problem. I hope President Obama will follow former President Clinton's lead and the example set by the great Ronald Reagan and put aside politics, work with the Congress on this matter, and accept a compromise that will allow us to responsibly deal with our debt while creating jobs and spurring economic growth. I would like to point out again: The average effective corporate rate varies by industry but is far less than the 35 percent rate, and the injustice is that some pay much less than others if they can afford lobbyists to write loopholes or they invest in politically correct purposes. Anyone not in thrall of class-war symbolism understands that the U.S. corporate tax code provides the worst of both worlds: It makes U.S. companies less competitive even as it raises much less revenue than advertised. So the fact is, the corporate Tax Code needs to be reformed anyway, and we need to cut it to 25 percent. It is either the first or the second highest tax rate in the world. Yet somehow major corporations such as Whirlpool and GE end up paying no taxes, but yet small businesspeople who can't afford a lobbyist here in Washington end up paying the 35-percent rates if they are incorporated. It is time we tell the American people who are frustrated by our lack of leadership, by our failure to come together. It is time to end the rhetoric, fulfill the commitment we made to the American people last November who resoundingly sent the message that they want the spending cut and the mortgaging of our children's future stopped. This is a reasonable proposal that I believe, with spending cuts, can be a breakthrough that we can proudly return to our constituents and say we are taking care of them, not the special interests and not hide-bound ideology. I yield the floor.